The Department of Central Management Services (Department) allowed a vendor to extensively revise its proposal during the best and final process after initial scoring evaluations were completed. Several items deleted by the vendor during the best and final process eventually were added back into the agreement, in the form of contract amendments, subsequent to the awarding of the contract, potentially costing the State $5.75 million.
Documentation contained in the procurement files for the Asset Management professional services procurement opportunity showed that the Department evaluated proposals and summarized the information on November 4, 2003. The table below shows the Department?s evaluation summary for the Asset Management procurement.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Asset Management professional services procurement opportunity informed proposers that the Department ??may request best & final offers if deemed necessary, and will determine the scope and subject of any best & final request.? On December 8, 2003, only one proposing vendor, Illinois Property Asset Management, LLC (IPAM) was provided the opportunity to submit a best and final offer.
There was no documentation in the procurement file addressing why other responsive proposers were not provided a best and final opportunity. The Department?s December 8, 2003 correspondence to IPAM states, ?The purpose of
this BAFO is to provide you with an opportunity to enhance the pricing and to improve any of the services offered within your original proposal.? While the price decreased from $35.9 million to $24.9 million as a result of the best and final process, IPAM?s technical proposal also significantly changed. Our review of the original proposal and BAFO submitted by IPAM noted: (see report for the details)
CMS Response: In one instance, the Department did?during a permitted Best and Final Offer (?BAFO?) process, clarify pricing. As a result of that process, it
became clear that one vendor?s proposal was superior, and this was documented in the procurement and contract files
Which completely misses the point that only one vendor was given the same opportunity even though that vendor significantly changed the quality of the proposal in reducing costs. No other vendor was asked for similar information.
To make matters worse, after reducing the price, the chosen vendor received contract amendments potentially making the contract nearly $6 million more expensive.
This is the worst I’ve seen yet and one should expect a whole lot of press attention on this point as well as potentially some legal attention from the AG. This stinks of an insider deal.
The Auditor Comment to sum up the problem: Comment 67: The auditors do not contend that IPAM is being allowed to charge twice for the same service; rather, the auditors contend that services that were deleted from IPAM?s original proposal during the best and final process have subsequently been amended back into the contract as sole source, non-competitive procurements
As someone who has dealt with RFP’s for the State, the audit reads like a ‘how-not-to’ or a business class on ‘worst practices’. And CMS is charged with contract compliance? Good choice, Governor PR. Let’s see how you spin out of this one.